FISA passes providing immunity to wiretapping telcos

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a new federal wiretapping law this afternoon by a vote of 69-28.

After last month’s approval of a similar measure in the House, today’s vote essentially clears the way for the bill to go to the White House for a final signature. … Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for the bill.

Obama might be the leader of the party right now, but he had nowhere near the support he needed to pass the Dodd/Feingold immunity-stripping amendment. Given that his vocal opposition could not have resulted in any change except to give the GOP powerful ammunition to make him the next Kerry, it’s prudent for him to reluctantly vote for the bill. Disappointing in the extreme, but he needs to get into office before he can effect any real change.

Hopefully he won’t renege on his promise to investigate if criminal prosecution is possible once he’s president. That’s about all we have left.

After reading what the Obama campaign had to say on this issue (when it was first announced that he was backing this bill? I get it. In a fight that the Democrats aren’t united enough to win, he instead got some legislation in there that the Dems wanted, meaning it isn’t a complete loss.

Hell, it means it is a compromise. One that the Democrats aren’t incredibly thrilled with, but one that allowed them to gain some ground.

Hopefully we’ll sweep more Republicans out of Congress this fall so we can really get some things done.

If you want to send a message to Obama telling him that this is unacceptable, I would encourage all supporters to boycott fund raising for a defined period of time.

I don’t write this with the intention or desire to see his campaign strangled for funds, but a sharp, short boycott of contributions is the strongest signal the American people can send and this juncture in your history. Citizens of conscience I think must work to undertake this.

This is not a strategic liability in the long run; Obama maintains a sizable fund raising lead and a head start in popular support. That said, there must be repercussions for the candidate for such an egregious vote. Further, I believe it could be argued that any representative that did not vote an emphatic â€œNayâ€ on this resolution would be violating their oaths and worthy of condemnation.

This is a precedent that cannot remain if you wish to see the true demise of the Bush ascendancy. If there is not a hard tack towards a principled defense of Rule of Law democracy, little hope remains for the United States. As a Canadian (aka ripe target), the developments in the United States are an intimately alien affair; the elephant in the bed, the sneezer who transmits the cold (to borrow oft quoted sayings). In both our interests, I think the only way to help right the American ship of state is a concerted fundraising boycott against Obama for a limited, predefined period of time.

Note that Obama, Clinton, and about 30 other Senators voted to to strike the Title granting immunity for telecoms. The motion to strike the amendment failed by a long shot, though, thanks to the Republicans and a handful of conservative Democrats.

I’m disappointed that Obama voted for the bill as a whole (which is about a hell of a lot more than telecom immunity), but I can just see the conservative blogosphere going to town with “Obama votes against security” if he had nayed.

i don’t have any illusions about politicians (and Obama is clearly a “good politician”) but why the #@$! did he vote for this anti-civil liberties bill?! so ok, he couldn’t stop the bill but why did he feel it necessary to provide approval for it!? !!#@!!! @#$#%$!

Obama has already won the primary; all he now needs to be is the lesser evil (which he is by a long shot), whilst courting the centre and moderate right. He just needs to be un-evil enough to get enough liberals/progressives out to vote to ensure that McCain doesn’t get in.

The tricky thing is that, while he is bound by these rules (if he’s going to be a successful politician, rather than an idealistic wingnut tilting ineffectually at windmills), he cannot acknowledge them, because of the polite fiction that he’s not a politician as we know them. Hence, we can expect to see a lot more cognitive dissonance from Obama, a lot more expediency and realpolitik, along with a desperately blinkered refusal to acknowledge the nature of the game, even when it’s spelled out.

Could the techi people out there do a little work and do a web page with a spread sheet with
All the senitors/congrespersons who voted against the constitution and when they are being elected again and their competitors. I would especially like to donate to independents against republicans, but vote them out and donate against them!!

Change you can believe in! My butt. How many times does this guy have to reverse course, flip-flop, turnabout, and on and on. Anyone left who thinks he’ll keep any promise to withdraw troops or prosecute the current administration? Anyone left who thinks he’ll turn back the clock on the sweeping changes Bush implemented increasing Executive Branch power and privilege? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So, the conventional wisdom is he had to do this or face a firestorm from the Republicans. Republicans calling a Democrat soft on national security that’s a new one. Do whatever you want Obama, Republicans would never think of outing you for promising to do X and then doing Y, over and over? Jacob @#7 is right, if being wary of looking soft on security was the case and nothing could be earned by voting nay, then close your door and turn off the lights. At least pretend to preserve some of your credibility. Don’t worry, he can cry about Nader costing Democrats the White House.

Perhaps Obama concluded that only bitter people without jobs cling to anger over illegal wiretapping.

Its interesting that Obama’s criticism of Hillary was, in part, that she wasn’t far enough from Bush on important matters like her vote for the war, but when it comes to endorsing a Bush policy on wiretapping, Hillary votes against and Obama votes to affirm.

And, clearly, if Hillary was the nominee and Obama the loser, the votes would have been reversed.